Disclaimer: The content presented in this blog is for general information only, is not intended to constitute legal advice and cannot be relied upon by any person as legal advice. While we welcome you to contact our blog authors at hrlawupdate@verrilldana.com, the submission of a comment or question does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Firm and you.

Entries in Connecticut
(19)

Earlier this week, bill HB5591, which has been touted as legislation that will help to close the gender pay gap between Connecticut employees, cleared the House of Representatives with a vote of 139-9. The bill, unlike the Massachusetts law that goes into effect next year, does not include a provision that would prevent employers from asking applicants about their salary history before making a job offer.

Many other states across the country, however, have bills similar to that passed by Massachusetts pending, including in Maine, which would restrict employers’ abilities to request information concerning previous rates of pay. Prior to this legislation moving forward, Lee Hansen in the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research published a comparison of Massachusetts and Connecticut’s labor laws relative to gender wage discrimination in a Research Report on December 16, 2016.

On June 7, 2016, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law Public Act 16-125, which allows employers to pay employees using payroll cards and to deliver certain wage and hour information to employees by electronic means. The new law takes effect on October 1, 2016. For a recent article discussing the new law, click here.

Yes, you read the title correctly, the employee was a state employee, who was smoking marijuana while working, in a work vehicle, while simultaneously possessing ¾ of an ounce of marijuana, but his termination has been found to be unwarranted. State of Connecticut v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent et al. (SC 19590)(official release August 30, 2016).

Factual Background

An hour and 50 minutes into his shift, the employee was observed “sitting in a state van parked in a secluded area of the health center campus,” along with a coworker, and was seen “sitting in the passenger seat with the door open, smoking from a glass pipe.” The employee had keys to the campus and could access “most of the health center campus, including the day care center, research laboratories and the hospital.” When asked what he was doing, the grievant responded, “just *%@%! off,” and then “acknowledged that he was smoking marijuana,” and “surrendered two bags of marijuana that he had in his possession,” which in total “weighed about three quarters of one ounce.” As a result, the University of Connecticut Health Center (his employer) fired him. The employee contested the termination pursuant to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and an arbitrator held a hearing to determine if the dismissal was for “just cause.”

The issue of Independent Contractor versus Employee has reared its ugly head once again, this time in the context of professional wrestling. A Connecticut lawsuit filed on behalf of retired wrestlers is seeking damages from World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. for head injuries, alleged to have been sustained in the course of their “employment” as professional wrestlers. Among the many employment-related claims raised by the wrestlers is the claim that they were misclassified as independent contractors when they were, in fact, employees. As a result of the independent contractor classification, workers’ compensation benefits were not provided to the wrestlers. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that wrestlers were not provided with health insurance, and were largely limited to the medical treatment provided by WWE medical staff. The group of former wrestlers allege that they suffer from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a progressive degenerative brain disease highlighted in the recent film “Concussion”. They are seeking compensatory and punitive damages among other remedies. Two similar lawsuits have been thrown out by Courts in recent years and it is not clear how the living Plaintiffs have determined that they suffer from CTE, since that condition is generally only able to be diagnosed by autopsy. Since an employment contract will not necessarily guarantee the existence of independent contractor status, the Court may well have to at least determine that threshold issue, if Plaintiffs are found to have standing to sue. For more details, read the 214 page complaint, Laurinaitis et. al v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case 3-16-cv-01209.

On June 1, 2016, Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law Public Act 16-83, entitled “An Act Concerning Fair Chance Employment,” joining a national trend of legislation to “ban the box” in the hiring process. Effective January 1, 2017, Connecticut’s new legislation modifies C.G.S. § 31-51i and prohibits virtually any employer—public or private—from inquiring about a prospective employee’s arrests, criminal charges or convictions on an initial employment application. The statute provides two exceptions that allow an initial inquiry if (1) the employer is required to do so by an applicable state or federal law; or (2) a security or fidelity bond or an equivalent bond is required for the position for which the prospective employee is seeking employment.

The legislation does not provide a private right of action for prospective employees against a covered employer, but instead allows a complaint to be filed with the Labor Commissioner alleging an employer’s violation.

Significant changes at the CHRO took effect on October 1, 2015, through the legislature’s passing of Public Act 15-249. The revisions are intended to streamline the discriminatory practice complaint procedure and increase public confidence in the agency’s decision-making process. A helpful summary of the new procedural changes was recently published in an article in the Connecticut Law Tribune and can be found here. If your company becomes the subject of a discriminatory practice in a proceeding before the CHRO, the attorneys at Verrill Dana are ready to assist you in navigating the agency’s new procedures.